urks." like tonight i'm going to talk about that two-year-old who was shot by the five-year-old. we'll give you details on that. and then there was a massive fight in the parliament of venezuela. it was quite a krarak u us. "vieoint" is next. >> john: good evening, the republicans have managed to combine their two favorite activities supporting immigrants and hating gay people. and the great tragedy for americans who want cheap clothes made by slave labor. and plan b now available to women over the count as young as age 15. president obama has not exactly shown leadership on this and many think when it comes to issue, this president wears too much protection. we celebrate birthday of wes and john woo who is blowing out the candles of his cake slow motion with two guns held sideways.

also the birthday of great novelist joseph heller who would describe the conundrum of the world we live in. and ten years ago george w. bush paraded in a flight suit beneath a ban that are prematuring announced the endering of the iraq war. this is "viewpoint." [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: good evening, i'm john fugelsang. thank you for joining us. this is "viewpoint." comprehensive immigration reform may be the only major bill with a chance to pass congress and get signed into law this entire year. and today tens of thousands of protesters turned out in los angeles and cities across the country to push for immigration reform, and immigrants' rights. after watching president obama

win 71% of the latino vote in last year's election, many republicans believe in immigration bill has to pass if they're going to have a shot at winning the white house in 2016. even so, florida republican senator marco rubio knows that the bill he has helped device as part of the senate's gang of eight is far from a sure thing. rubio told the conservative mike gallagher show tuesday. >> the bill that is in place right now probably can't pass the house. it will have to be adjusted because people are suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now and in theture. >> which didn't seem to bother white house press secretary jay carney. >> well, i haven't heard that assessment. i think as the president and others have made clear we're still in our oral stages here. we have a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was authored by republicans and democrats in the senate, and has significant bipartisan support but that process is still moving forward. >> john: in fact, the senate judiciary committee is supposed

to start marking up the bill next week, which could be when the process grinds to a halt. that's because when committee chairman pat leahy democrat from vermont has said he'll offer up an amendment that would give gay americans the right to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal presidency. it it's called the uniting american families act and it would permit permanent partners of u.s. citizens or legal residents to apply for a green cared with a permanent partner defined as someone older than 18 who is in a financially enter dependent whited relationship. some republicans are already throwing up their hands in horror at the idea of being nice to immigrants and gay people at

the same time. advocates like rachel tbins says republicans will ultimately have to come around on this. ms. tiven told politico, alienating the majority of the country that sees lgbt equality as a done deal is a losing issue for them. so should the lgbt community push hard for senator leahy's uniting american families act? for more, i'm joined by gilbert arana-- >> it's actually gabriel. >> i'm sorry. i wanted to talk about this very powerful story that you posted with the headline, immigration gay community should take one for the team. it's a catchy headline, but why do you say that? >> so it's clear that the guy

rights community has two interests in this bill. the first is there are about 250,000 lgbt undocumented immigrants currently in the country. and so the path to legalization in the current bill, in the current gang of eight bill is very important. my position is basically if it comes down to the wire and as marco rubio seems to indicate, republicans are unwilling to support the bill with extensions for lgbt families, that we should see the ground. >> rachel tiven said changing demographics will ultimately force the republicans doing along with these this bill. i take it you don't agree. >> no, as you mentioned earlier marco rubio has basically assured them that this will kill the bill. and the four republicans on the senate due jewish near committee

said the same thing. i really don't think they're bluffing. >> well, is there a risk that if these provisions don't get passed in this bill it will be years or decades before the senate can consider something similar again? this seems like a suicidal play for the republicans at this point, doesn't it? >> i wouldn't say so. over the summer it's widely expected that the defense of marriage act which prevents the government from recognizing same-sex marriage in the states will be struck down. and for gay couples living in blue states this would he extend these protections to lgbt families. there is likely win over the summer and the marriage equality movement has a momentum. >> i agree with you on that one and we're going to see more and more states allow equality which is going to mean great things for partners who are not from this country. had a is the down side if the leahy amendment passes the

judiciary mark up but the bill fails in either the senate or the house. will lgbt americans take the blame on this? >> i would say so, and i would also say that is the worst probable scenario. not only will the lgbt have lost the policy fight we won't have an immigration bill that extends past the undocumented, and we won't have a bill that protects lgbt families but in addition will have lost the policy fight. the political fight as well. >> john: well its nothing new to see the democratic party throwing the lgbt community under the bus at the last minute at the interest of appearing moderate to middle america. are you taking heat for posting this story today? >> absolutely. i think a lot of it comes from the headline which is a bit sensational because i think my position is more nuanced. i support extending protections for lgbt families in this bill,

and i think we should fight as hard as hob possible until the very end. if it comes down to the wire and all the cards are on the table it's better to have a bill than no bill at all. >> john: gabriel arana. many things for coming on "viewpoint." it's great to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> john: of course. now let's go to david leopold president of the lawyers association and the one and only sam seder host of ring of fire. mr. leopold, let me begin with you. some democrats thought this battle could break the republican party. if there is a fight over same sex partners could it wind up split erringsplintering the democrat

party instead. >> the republican party needs immigration reform at this point more than they ever have in the past. 71% of the latino vote repudiated them last fall and they can't afford to go forward without immigration reform that's going to risk not being in the house for years to come. >> john: indeed, sam, do you think it would damage the standing with latino voters? >> no, the blame would lay with the people who voted against the bill in that instance. as far as i know, the major immigration reform groups are supporting this measure as well. they stated in the past you already providing maybe over 250,000 lgbt folks with a path to citizenship through this bill. look, i think david is right. the politics for the republicans have not changed. this does not get them a get out

of jail free card with the immigrant and latino voting block out there. so the politics are the same. you know, i think for the best for the republicans is this bill gets through the senate. it takes a while to wind its way through the house and by the time it gets to a vote in the house you've already been struck down. and so they won't have to deal with this. the politics don't change for them. right now what we're see something a jockeying really on both sides to get a sense of where everybody is going to rest on this issue. >> john: it does sound like it could be some vast political game of chicken. but they have not said yet how they will vote. senator dianne feinstein is as well as her lgbt friends, could they hope that the lgbt community would forgive them as they always have and then move on. >> let's back up and look at

what we're talking about. congress is no in session this week. they're all home. marco rubio who has been a champion in the gang of eight. he's home talking on conservative radio shows and in short talking to his base. when you're talking to your base you're campaigning. when you're in washington, hopefully you're governing. that's what we've seen rubio and the rest they have been governing. i think we'll see common sense prevail and real governing. i don't think that the provision, the equality provision for lgbt that senator leahy and by the way susan collins supports bipartisan senator collins from maine bipartisan support will be killed in committee. the hope is that it would be offered on the floor rather than in committee. i don't think we'll see it killed in committee.

i think democrats republicans even conservative republicans are going to have to understand, and have to realize that the world is changing. we saw it this week in the professional basketball, the momentum for lgbt rights, which by the way is a civil rights like every other civil rights we've been through in this country is part of the future. and it's going to have to be part of immigration reform, if not now very soon. >> john: so let me ask you to speculate into the mind of marco rubio. how nervous do you think he is over this provision or does this give him a get out of making a commitment free card. >> i think he's nervous about this provision, to be honest with you. he has gone so far down this road, if he let's this stop him it sinks his 2016 aspiration. he brought everybody in this dance. he brought the horse up to the water. it wouldn't drink his credibility within his caucus is also damaged at that point.

>> john: david you're saying you agree. there is not a change that senator rubio could tell the latino population of the america that we're the gap we're fighting for you? >> i agree with sam on this. marco rubio has talked his political future, presidential ambitions if he has those and i think he might is staked on immigration reform. he has put his career into this. he's not going to walk away. he's not going to walk away on this issue. that's not to say that the issue necessarily is going to prevail. in other words, that the bill ultimately, the final bill that goes to president obama is going to have the lgbt--the provision for marriage equality, which i hope it does, it may not. i think marco rubio is in this--he's part of the gang of eight and he's not going to walk out of this for all the reasons that sam just said. >> john: sam, does the amendment

pass? >> i don't know, the real question is what will happen in committee, and i don't know if they will attach it to the bill or sort of save the amendment for the senate floor. you know, i tend to think that it will, but you know, i don't know. i have been seen really any good reporting yet on where everybody stands. it's going to be really hard. it's a game of chicken. the politics have not changed for republicans. they need immigration reform as much as they did with or without this provision that deals with whatever, 40,000 people. >> john: it could be win-win for the democrats. go ahead david. >> the other thing to remember is that the democrats their goal is to get this bill off the senate floor with 70-plus votes. they need the momentum going into the house of representatives. that backs up what gabriel was saying earlier. but at the same time i don't think that they know--i don't

think that senator leahy tonight knows whether or not he's going offer that amendment next week. i think it's a delicate political dance. i think it's going to be very interesting over the next couple of days, and i think the dynamics of this whole thing on the equality amendment are going to change over the weekend as they get back into washington and begin the hard task of really governing and getting to work. >> john: we're out of time, but the million dollar yes or no question for both of you if the supreme court strikes down doma does this become moot? >> more or less. >> you have to tweak the immigration statute but yes i agree. more or less it will moot out the whole thing. >> david leopold general counsel and former president of the american immigration lawyers association, and sam seder host of the ring of fair and majority report. thank you for being on the program. >> thank you.

>> have we outsourced tragedy now to bangladesh? that's ahead.

(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> what a way to start the day. (vo) followed by "talking liberally with stephanie miller" >> this is big for me. only on current tv. >> john: today's thing of the day is the anniversary of the day. ten years ago today president george w. bush declared mission

accomplish in iraq. he made the declaration about eight years too early but the mainstream media swooned over the sight of the president in his flight suit so much the bush media relationship was used as an template for all thee harmony ads we see to this day. may first is workers day. showing solidarity with organized labor and thousand to take to the streets and rally against austerity and the post poignant rally in bangladesh after a factory burned to ground. enough is enough. a garment industry that has been plagued by catastrophe from the very beginning and the desire for cheap clothing has always trumped the safety of cheap labor prompts pope francis in a

private sermon reportedly saying: >> john: the question is what if going for god goes against some other guys bottom line? we're joined now by labor reporter for "in these times" michaelic. mike, thank you for joining us this evening. >> thank you for having me. >> john: do you think this will cause people to examine the conditions in which clothing is made. >> the popes say stuff like this all the time about working conditions of workers in the world. unfortunately, popes don't have as much power and political

juice as they used to, so it doesn't translate to results for workers. i think it will be an uphill battle to get much changed in the factories overseas. >> john: is that because no one has any influence when it comes to making a case for workers? >> well, i think certainly outside of bangladesh it will be tough to make that case. i think inside of bangladesh there have been mass protest about this factory collapse, and if change is going to come it will come from protesters taking to the streets and demanding change and forcing bangladesh to change its way similar to how workers in the shirt waist fire demanded change in this country. i thinkal think allies can help in this cause. >> john: is it possible that the u.s. could follow suit? >> yes the bangladesh has a

preferred trade partner status, that means if there is slightly export duties when they their exports go to the e.u. and in order to continue getting that, then bangladesh may be forced to do that, and that is one way to apply pressure. as for the u.s. just check the headlines. has president obama even made a statement about the bangladesh factory collapse? is it on the news? i don't think there is anything in this corner of the world that will pressure them. >> cenk: we have how do you respond to sentiments like that. >> some people are willing to let workers die for their goods. other people aren't. i certainly think there are enough people in this country who are horrified and outraged that that's not the case. i feel for so many people. they're so broke and not involved in politics at all that they just go and they buy cheap

clothes because that's what they can afford to buy. they don't have the time and political consciousness to get involved in activism. >> john: but i think most americans would be willing to pay an extra dime or two if they know their clothes are being made in better conditions. knowing where our clothes come from and trying to prevent future strategies like this one. >> there will be campaigns at a lot of different universities to get universities to divest from communities like this overseas. and campaigns at the state level to not get states to divest in these kinds of companies. there will be campaigns like that and people will apply pressure to lawmakers. but for more americans they don't know where to get involved to begin to get in a fight like this. >> john: tom hartman likes to

say we didn't end slavery. we outsourced it. is this something that could happen here in america or is it happening right now? >> if you look at the west texas chemical fertilizer plant explosion you had 15 folks killed because of pore safety conditions. similar at the triangle shirt factory fire over a century ago this factory in west, texas didn't have sprinklers in it, didn't have fire alarms and glass walls put up. this fire was preventable but didn't have the right safety measures. i think the same things happen in our country just on a small smaller scale. >> john: and rent these tragedy ant these tragedies completely linked. it's not about big government, it's about good government. will there have to be more tragedies for people to get the message. >> these tragedies happen all the time. maybe something will come of this. but there is outrange about what

has happened. they went and arrested the head of the factory and he'll face criminal charges over this. i do think there might be some movement for change. >> well, let me ask you what companies would you consider to be the worst culprits when it comes to this kind of exploitation. >> there are a number of companies that have already signed on to workers right consortium, an independent agency that would monitor clothing stuff. the two groups who refuse to--the big holdouts are the gap and walmart they're the culprits who are not willing to sign on to measures to have independent audits done where the factories and clothing is produced. so as long as you have hold outs it would be tough. >> john: where can folks learn more. >> go to in these times.com and follow me at twitter at

michaelic. >> john: i look forward to have you on the air for a happy labor story. thank you for your insights. >> thank you for having me on. >> john: congress is attending an unofficial hearing on ufos. former senator mike revel joins me coming up. political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i am given to doing anyway. staying in tough with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them, right? vo: the war room monday to thursday at 6 eastern

>> john: tonight on wtf michigan we bask in the glow of one david

gima who posted an anti-guy screed on his facebook page stating among others things that homosexuality is hazardous to your health and usually leads to early death, gosh if only gore vidal had known that his gay lifestyle led to an early he would have really regretted being gay when he died at age 86. and agema went on to compare homosexuality to alcoholism and wanted to prevent people from saying i want to be gay if i wasn't before. wtf, michigan, you know as well as i do this guy is a complete moron pop to your state's credit, many michigan republicans and social conservatives who oppose same sex unions have nonetheless

condemned his remarks. they totally unfriended him on facebook. although they have stopped short of flaming him because that sounds kind of gay. i just home that the backlash against dave agema is an indication that we're finally living in a society where it is easier to come out of a closet as a gay person than it is to come out of the closet as a homophobic bigot. thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

>> john: as we mentioned on the show last night, a citizens group has been holding unofficial hearings in washington, d.c. this week on one simple topic. nothing too complicated. no reason to get excited. they just would like to know if the u.s. government has been covering up ufo sightings since the truman administration.

that's all. they have all been testifying before former members of congress and the senate. former members who are being paid $20,000 a piece to show up and form a figure head committee. the question is how serious is a hearing like this? how serious can it be? no one cracked a smile when air force captain said nuclear missiles have shut down right when oval objects have been spotted floating over military facilities. >> john: so great we just won the arms race with the russians, now we have to start one with the romulena. joining me now one of the legislators at that hearing the one and only mike gravel, who represented the great state of alaska for 22 years.

senator, what a pleasure it is to have you on "viewpoint." >> thank you for having me. >> john: thank you, sir. what got you involved in this particular hearing. >> well, i was approached--first off, i'm like any other city citizen who is well-read. i follow the ufo, the ete issues casually. but i was approached two weeks ago if i would be part of this hearing. i sort of blew it off because i didn't really understand what the hearing was about and i had others plans. but then another person, who i had respect for briefed me more fully on what the hearing was about, and then i thought it would be an opportunity for me to spend one week and in preparation for the hearing to become very knowledgeable about this subjecters which is probably the most significant subject in our entire civilization because it

juxtapose whether or not there is a force out there that we can't identify with the sightings of saucers, you call it whatever, and and that force is observing the planet. i've now after the testimony and the research that i've done, i think that this hearing is extremely worthwhile, and there's no question about it, that the government of the united states is in total denial of this. of course, we've had several smoking guns to show that this denial is ridiculous. >> john: well, you're not the only one who thinks that, sir and i appreciate any americans who go about investigating this. i think it is a significant issue that the media too soon writes off as just a joke. is it common for citizen groups to invite legislature to come and do a congressional style

hearing, and did your time in the senate serve you well in preparation of this? >> well certainly my experience in the senate did serve me well, and of course the other five members of the house certainly add to it. we all have--in fact, i think the number is about 80 years of legislative experience on our side of the table. but we're all retired from public office, yes we're obviouslysises interested inobvious--obviously we're citizens who are interested in this. the reason for the format was that the group that's putting it on is the research group they wanted to be able to see if they could shame the congress, so to speak, into having a hearing like this.

i personally don't think it's going to happen. i don't think congress is going to be interested in a subject like this, there is no political benefit and there is political risk involved. but there is a new direction to go in, and they should go into a global, a global--because this is a global issue, not just an american issue--the american government is the most irresponsible in handling the subject, but it's a global issue, and we should have the united nations the general assembly form an agency, and have a global conference of scientists that would focus on the issues involved. >> john: sir, how specifically is the american government irresponsible in handling this issue? >> well, first off you have the white house. they don't know anything about it. they don't have any files. well that's an outright lie. whether it comes to who in the white house or the president and of course what happens all the way down the chain of command they keep the cover up. now the cover up started with

what happened in roz well where a spacecraft, flying saucer, what have you, crashed and apparently there were four humanoids or whatever, that died and perished in that event. right after that happened within hours the general involved took charge and shut everything down. it's classified and intimidateing anybody and everybody who was involved. intimidating them and getting a lot of military personnel to sign nondisclosure agreements. now that's who we have been interviewed these last three days. we have two more days to interview military personnel who were on the scene who gave direct first-hand testimony and then the researchers and scholars who have devoted their time and energy, so you have military personnel as high ranking as lt. col.s and full

bird colonels and scholar who is are steeped in the field and who have written numerous books on the subject. >> john: well, senator, i appreciate you and your fellow legislators use area celebrity and renown to pressure congress to at least start talking to "b" it, but i have to ask are some of the other former congress members just picking up a paycheck or do you think they're genuinely concerned? >> no, they're genuinely concerned. first off, the paycheck, stop and think it's five days, 9:00 to 5:00 every day. so it's not what you call a high-salary situation but they cover all the expenses and it's just reasonable. you have the pundits who go out and speak and get $30,000 or thousand dollars or henny kissinger who gets to $100,000 a peach or reagan who gets

$2 million for one speech. the money is incidental, they are public citizen who is have served and realized that this issue--and they came in very skeptically. there was no one who was overwhelmingly convinced this was a legitimate issue. mainstream media by and large tries to marginalize people and call them an i'll koo ky. >> john: indeed, they do. >> i was interviewed and they said senator tell us about the little green men. i don't know any little green men and it was demeaning, and i was able to bring the person around. what is at issue here is something that we don't know, and that the government covered up. now we know why the government is covering it up, because we have several smoking guns.

i'll rae give you one of them as an example. with the missiles silos in montana, the dakotas and one other state wyoming whenever there was one of these--we'll call theme flying saucers for lack of a better word--when they were hovering over a silo, the missiles were unlaunchible. >> john: we mentioned that. >> the military would go bonkers after that after spending 1 trillion-dollar on an undefensedefensible defense system, when push comes to shove it doesn't work. they want to keep that a secret. but the empowered leaders have a perception totally towards secrecy and keep things covered up. that's very sad. if we're going to be an operating democracy the people have to know what is going on. and since this thing is a

civilize plan planetary import, people have a right to know what is going on. the united states is the dark hole in this thing. >> john: we're out of time and this is an issue that many americans care about. senator mike gravel, thank you for talking with us and it was a pleasure to watch you debate for president back in 2008. it was a real thrill. thank you sir. after the break it's birth control for people who might need it most, 15-year-old girls. the panel joins me next.

>> john: okay, when it comes to contraception, and this may shock you there seems to be a double standard between the sexes. while a teenage boy can walk into any drugstore and purchase a box of trojans for $5, no questions asked about his age young women have not been afforded the same opportunity to purchase for $50 plan b, known to some as the "morning-after pill." however with the fda's

announcement this week that the plan b emergency contraception pill has been approved over the counters sale to women 15 years and older women health groups feel this is not going far enough. there is an age restriction and yes it requires verification with a driver's license passport orbiter certificate which every 15-year-old carries in their back pocket. it was discussioned that the age should be 17, it is seen by many as a step in the right direction for women. here to discuss this and other issues i'm pleased to be joined by my panel of none experts i'm pleased to joined by comedian writer and on air correspondent for the fx series "totally biased with w. kamau bell" janine breeto. and also joined by guy branum whose is code median comedian writer and on

air correspondent for "totally biased with w. kamau bell," and politico median scott blakeman, whowho neither writes or appears on "totally biased with w. kamau bell." i want to talk the announcement that you must be 15 years old or older for the plan b emergency plan pill. is this a good thing or bad thing that a 15-year-old can walk into the drugstore and get this medication. >> i think it's not as good as a 15-year-old not getting pregnant in the first place and was taught safe sex, and using contraception, but i think it's better than having a 15-year-old getting pregnant. >> i think it's interesting that they don't want a 15-year-old to have access to contraception but a 15-year-old having a baby. >> john: it's the fear of female

sexuality. a lot of people say this will encourage promiscuity, although i think being 15 encourages promiscuity. >> it my encourage getting a photo i.d. i think there should be no restrictions whatsoever. what if you're active at 13 and 14. i was a late bloomer, i was 19. and who carries around--you don't have a driver's license at that age. you don't have a passport and you don't have your birth certificate. i think it's unrealistic restrictions and i feel there shouldn't be any. >> john: and i feel men have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies when men stop trying to get in their bodies even then they don't have a right. but they made plan b available for women of all ages, and many are calling for the same thing. do you agree there shouldn't be any age at all when there is a woman as young as 11 or 12.

>> absolutely. fda studies show women of all angles. it should be available to women of all ages. the only one who has right to say anything is to say and walk away. >> it is a sign that a crime is occurring. that is a place for a pharmacist to contact the authorities but also i don't necessarily think that that should stop her from getting the "morning-after pill." it is a limited time during which the pill can be effective. during the period of time that you're waiting for parental consent, this thing is forming along. >> john: yes, it's a healthcare issue and a women's rights issue. i want to move on, as contentious as this is, something happened this week that affects the lgbt and the

republican community in unexpectedly hilarious ways. another story that shows a positive sign of a shift of momentum in this country. paul ryan said he now supports same sex adoption. take a look. >> in my first term, i do believe that if there are children who are orphans and who do not have a loving person or couple, i think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that, period. so i would vote that way. i do marriage is between a man and woman. we respectfully disagree on that. >> john: i'm glad he took the time to be a complete smock.at the end of that. >> john: he is now in support of

gay adoption. >> he's encouraging people to live in sin by his standards and it's nice to see that he's breaking away from his usual day of writing budgets that hurt poor people and the middle class. but i look at him coming around on gay adoptions like when segregationists say years later they're sorry for being racist. and the fact that this whole idea that marriage is between a man and woman the only place that is written is the g.o.p. platform. >> john: and it's not really said that in the bible. matthew is totally taken out of context. does paul ryan coming out in favor of gays to adoption, didn't he just destroy his whole bigoted stance? >> i think that argument is going to be destroyed with or without his stance. >> john: istics. >> i think that is a step in the right direction because it shows that republicans are slowly coming over.

>> john: which we celebrate of course. >> the rendell republican delegation has been coming over. if they let a generation of black children being raised by lesbian moms they understand they'll never win an election after 2030. we're two-thirds lgbt and scott we don't know about. >> i was the first commercial to depict someone playing a gay person. >> john: you're gay chasten. >> it was the broke back of ikea ikea. >> john: way. i think that commercial did more for acceptance of gay culture that's when capitalism got the way. >> disposable income. >> john: it may be that this is the biggest 12 months of gay acceptance in our lifetime between an nba star, president

supporting marriage equality. >> and paul ryan, nine months ago this would have been a liberal opinion for a democrat. a lot has happened. >> john: we got to going to break. when we come back it's back to birth control. do you know what live would be like without row verse wade? that's coming up next.